1. We affirm that the Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2018, which was taken against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2018, is invalid.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s work relationship and B related cases, etc. 1) entered the Defendant in around 2006, and worked in the Defendant’s C Team from July 2015. B was issued on January 1, 2016 and served as the said Team. (2) From around 18:00 on May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff came to talk with the Defendant’s household members from around the Defendant’s head office.

B 30 minutes later and 30 minutes later, the two forms were together with the two forms.

The participants of the Council, including the Plaintiff and B, are dnick by mixing with beer and beer in the above type of hall, and most of them, except for some number of persons, are dnick by mixing with beer and beerer in nearby singing rooms between 20:30 to 21:00 on the same day.

At around 00:20 on May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and B had sexual intercourse with their hotel nearby the instant singing room. On the same day, they came to the said hotel around 04:39 on the same day.

3) On May 13, 2016, B’s spouse D found the Defendant’s trade union office and referred to as the hotel hotel accommodation, and demanded disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and B. Around May 13, 2016, B claimed that “the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff, which was under the influence of alcohol as at the time the Plaintiff was enrolled in a hotel on May 11, 2016, and was sexual intercourse with the latter in the condition of mental disorder,” and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff as quasi-rape. On September 19, 2016, the Prosecutor appears to have sexual intercourse between B and the Plaintiff in light of the relevant person’s statements, telephone details, and CCTV images. However, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff by recognizing that the Plaintiff had sexual intercourse with the latter. Accordingly, the Prosecutor dismissed the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s respective duty of disciplinary action as an employee under the control of the Plaintiff and the employee under the control of B’s dignity.”

5 B and her spouse D on 2017